Gun Rights versus Gun Control in the United States

I'm quite ignorant on the legal definitions of a lot of weapons in the US, but I always thought a "machinegun" was a type of gun that retained a field of fire (i.e., the guns rotate across an arc as they fire). But I think that might be something that's from WWI and quite possibly outdated at this point, much like how clip and magazine have become confused.

And how many prospective owners of FA guns will get any training at all?

Yeah, with the cost being what it is, I'd imagine the people who will own them are pretty much going to be your big fans of them who do actually go out and shoot often.

I mean, let's get real nobody is going to pay $15,000 for a full automatic weapon, do all the hoops needed to get approved for them, and then go out and rob a 7-11 for $121 in cash. That doesn't even make remote sense.

And how many prospective owners of FA guns will get any training at all?

Yeah, with the cost being what it is, I'd imagine the people who will own them are pretty much going to be your big fans of them who do actually go out and shoot often.

I mean, let's get real nobody is going to pay $15,000 for a full automatic weapon, do all the hoops needed to get approved for them, and then go out and rob a 7-11 for $121 in cash. That doesn't even make remote sense.

Reopening the registry will drop that price closer to the production price. That still is going to result in $1.5k+tax stamp guns. The $15k price is because of scarcity, not production costs, which are fairly similar to the semi version of the system.

However, it IS completely disengious to pretend that there will be lots running around. Suppressors are Class III weapons, but open to registry, requiring ATF approval, etc .. and while uncommon but not exactly rare, very few crimes are committed with silenced weapons.

I'm quite ignorant on the legal definitions of a lot of weapons in the US, but I always thought a "machinegun" was a type of gun that retained a field of fire (i.e., the guns rotate across an arc as they fire). But I think that might be something that's from WWI and quite possibly outdated at this point, much like how clip and magazine have become confused.

As usual, there's a substantial disconnect between legal terminology and real-world usage.

In the United States any firearm capable of firing more than one round while the trigger is depressed is classified as a "machine gun".

You're probably thinking of the term "machine gun" as it would actually be used in the military. That of a typically heavier weapon system meant to deliver a high volume of suppressive fire.

Under the law the burst and automatic versions of the M16 and M4 are classified as "machine guns", but you'll never hear them referred to as such in the military since that term tends to be reserved for weapons systems like the M249 SAW. And even heavier guns that tend to be mounted.

Likewise a compact automatic weapon capable of firing pistol-caliber rounds is typically referred to as a submachine-gun, but under the law there's no distinction. More than one round per trigger press = machine gun. Period.

Then there's the more recent invention of PDWs (Personal Defense Weapons), which are compact weapons that typically fire specially designed small rifle rounds. They were designed to make up for the shortcomings of SMGs, which fired relatively anemic pistol rounds that are (relatively) ineffective against body armor. The most well-known weapon in this category is the P90.

.劉煒 wrote:

However, it IS completely disengious to pretend that there will be lots running around. Suppressors are Class III weapons, but open to registry, requiring ATF approval, etc .. and while uncommon but not exactly rare, very few crimes are committed with silenced weapons.

Which is particularly noteworthy, since the regulation of suppressors are easily the simplest gun-control regulations to circumvent. An oil filter works as an improvised silencer. Criminals simply don't bother because the alleged benefits are overblown, and detract from the concealability of a weapon which is of prime concern to criminals. You aren't easily hiding a gun with an oil filter attached to the end in your waistband.

papadage wrote:

As for the second point.. use. I am OK with owning. But usage should be restricted to remote ranges, or if in SD, only allowed with specially designed frangible rounds.

I'm not sure why any of this is necessary. Even with the extremely heavy regulation of "machine guns" under current law, the laws you describe are not among them.

If you're among the wealthy few to own a registered machine gun, there's no prohibition against using it in self-defense. One would probably have to be an idiot to do so, not necessarily for safety reasons, but because a gun used in self-defense is likely to be seized as evidence and quite possibly never returned. If you can afford a machine gun, you can afford a common semi-automatic for self-defense that isn't going to make you cry when it's seized and never returned.

As for the remote ranges thing? The design of the range and the backstop are far more important than it's relative proximity to populated areas. My club has a once-annual "machine gun shoot", and we're located in the middle of the suburbs, but the event is held on a part of the property that's at the bottom of a 50ft ravine to make it virtually impossible that anyone would send one outside of the range.

Incidentally, attaching a foregrip to the accessory rail on a pistol turns it into a prohibited AOW in the US unless you get the appropriate tax stamp. I've seen people take a foregrip of a rifle and attach it to their pistol just for the lulz, until someone informed them that they'd just committed a felony.

For more lulz, those weapons where that has been done are now considered permanently Title II weapons subject to summary destruction when the ATF hears about it.

The ease with which certain gun control laws make it possible for one to become an "accidental felon" through a completely harmless act, is one of the things that infuriate gun-rights proponents but that gun-control proponents fail to understand.

One shouldn't be able to become a felon by innocently attaching a fore-grip to their pistol, or by swapping out the stock on their rifle. Or perhaps most relevant given recent gun control legislation in NY and elsewhere, by losing count of the number of rounds you just loaded into your mag.

Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff’s deputy.

Investigators say Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning on Saturday was showing his weapons to a relative in a bedroom of his Lebanon home when the toddler came in and picked up a gun off the bed. Sheriff Robert Bryan says the weapon discharged, hitting 48-year-old Josephine Fanning.

She was pronounced dead at the scene. The child is not related to her or her husband.

One shouldn't be able to become a felon by innocently attaching a fore-grip to their pistol, or by swapping out the stock on their rifle. Or perhaps most relevant given recent gun control legislation in NY and elsewhere, by losing count of the number of rounds you just loaded into your mag.

That seems a pretty ungracious complaint. The original law didn't have this 'problem'. It was modified to it's current form in response to copious whining by gun enthusiasts.

Not so much glee, as an indication that there is a heck of a lot of irresponsibility with loaded weapons out there. To me, he should be guilty of criminal negligence.

Who? The parent of the kid, or the guy who felt he was safe in his own home showing off his guns? It's not like he had the gun out at the family bbq and left it on a picnic table or something.

Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is criminally responsible. That said I guess some people just like turning a families tragedy into a talking point.

That said at least arcite could have posted a link to the story.

Leaving a loaded gun unattended enough that a toddler who you know is in your house can walk up to it and pick it up is not "tough luck". It's criminal recklessness.

Disagree. I also suspect nobody will face jail time over this ((of course without a link to the article who knows what else was going on)) but with what was presented... it's a sad situation but not criminal. In fact it seems like they were doing was responsible. The two adults who wanted to talk and look at the gun went to an entirely different room.

Take the gun out and set up another situation.

A friend has his friend who has a kid over. The two men go into the garage to look at a car he's working on that has it's engine suspended in the air. The toddler, who they had left with another adult, rushes in an hits the release button causing the enginge to be released and crushes one of them. No sane DA would even think of charging the adults in that situation.

In other words, not every sad situation needs to be made into a political issue... and yet here we are.

1. There was a kid in the house.2. They were having a cookout. There is no mention of how many other people were there, or if there was alcohol, but I bet there was.3. He loaded and cocked a gun and put it down4. He left it unattended enough that a four year old could get a hold of it

Clear negligence.. and to me.. criminal. Not manslaughter, but not in the least just "unfortunate". The fact that no one will face any criminal charges is a crock. One of the reasons so many of us look askance at gun owners and their protestations about their rights being infringed is apologism like yours.

Leaving a loaded gun unattended enough that a toddler who you know is in your house can walk up to it and pick it up is not "tough luck". It's criminal recklessness.

Because it's not like a 4 year old at a family gathering would ever run in from outside, into the room where the adults had gone, and just grab an object off the bed before anyone could react.

Clearly, more care should have been taken, but I'm not convinced this was a case of outright negligence. We don't have enough information on the specifics, and arcite doesn't even want to provide a link to the actual story.

What little he did post doesn't appear to suggest the gun was simply left out in the open and unattended. At least not in the sense that he's implying. But "ZOMG ARMED TODDLERZ!!!111", right?

Not so much glee, as an indication that there is a heck of a lot of irresponsibility with loaded weapons out there.

Posting the occasional anecdote hardly qualifies as a "heck of a lot of irresponsibility".

The pro-gun side could just as easily scour the internet for every article about a defensive gun-use and post it here, but that doesn't mean that it would be productive or would actually convince anyone of anything.

Faramir wrote:

That seems a pretty ungracious complaint. The original law didn't have this 'problem'. It was modified to it's current form in response to copious whining by gun enthusiasts.

How the hell does a four year old run in and grab a gun off the bed in front of two adults? Really? These are the idiots you want to spend capital defending? The guy should face charges. There is a person dead because he left a loaded gun unattended.

If this is the bar of that would be considered safe handling, everyone's pistols should be confiscated.

1. There was a kid in the house.2. They were having a cookout. There is no mention of how many other people were there, or if there was alcohol, but I bet there was.3. He loaded and cocked a gun and put it down4. He left it unattended enough that a four year old could get a hold of it

Clear negligence.. and to me.. criminal. Not manslaughter, but not in the least just "unfortunate".

1. Yup, people are allowed to show off adult things to other adults... even when there is a kid in the house.2. Nothing in the story mentions it or that it was a factor, you might as well jump to.. "I'm not saying it was aliens... but it aliens."3. Loaded yes, nothing in the article says it was cocked. ((This points to the fact that at every step of the story you've added things and in every case they have been added to make the gun owner look worse. Nice......))4. From the story he set it down and the 4 year ran over and grabbed it. That happens... I've watched similar things happen with wallets, keys, rings, and the like. People who don't have kids are often shocked at how sneaky ((not on purpose but if you aren't used to looking down you don't notice little kids)) kids are and how quick they are to grab things that they want. That doesn't make the home owner a criminal. Hell the last time I was at a table top RPG one of the guys at the table brought his kid and wife over and while 7 adults were at the table one of the kids managed to snag and swallow one of the gamers dice before any of us could stop him. Lucky for us it all worked out in the end.

Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is criminally responsible. That said I guess some people just like turning a families tragedy into a talking point.

While it's pretty clear that papadage is exploiting any tragedy he can find to make a point, what point is not exactly clear, there is a phenomenon at play here that isn't limited to guns.

It seems like in the past few decades there has been a bit of a moral panic, related to charging parents with criminal offenses for any mistake which results in the death or serious injury of the child. In this case it wasn't the kid who died, but still, it involves a kid and a gun which ensures a certain amount of moral panic.

Still, when people are irresponsible with dangerous things we need to punish them. Even if the legal punishment they receive is a shadow of the guilt and suffering they deal with internally, it's necessary.

I think it's more a matter of satisfying the public desire for vengeance, than it is "necessary".

In that sense it's pretty much the same as when people start screaming for blood when someone accidentally leaves a kid in a hot vehicle. A lot of people are quick to clamor for vengeance over a tragedy that may have resulted from what was a momentary lapse of thought or judgment.

I do not believe that the kid was there and picked it up within seconds. Not for a moment. If the kid was that close, he would have seen him and not put it down.

Cool if you are going to start out by assuming people are lying, great.

Let's see if any charges are filed and if the guy is convicted.. I'm thinking.. not likly on the first and pretty much no way in hell on the second.

I dunno, I'd be pretty okay with any loaded, chambered, and cocked firearm being left unattended for any period of time as being considered negligent.

If the kid could just pick it up and discharge it, then it was clearly in a ready-to-fire situation, and not one where you should ever leave a gun alone. If you're chambered and cocked, you had better intend to shoot, or you should drop and clear. I highly doubt that a four-year-old was inadvertently firing a double-action trigger pull.

How the hell does a four year old run in and grab a gun off the bed in front of two adults? Really?

There are these things called "children", and you seem to understand even less about them than you do guns. They tend to be highly mobile, quick, inquisitive, and grabby, and often unreliable when it comes to responding to and following directions.

Quote:

These are the idiots you want to spend capital defending?

No, these are "the idiots" who I'm not willing to instantly throw under the bus solely because of a 3 letter word and an uncited, unsupported say-so of someone on the internet who does nothing but troll for gun related tragedies, throw in a bit of "THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ!" and link and run.

I do not believe that the kid was there and picked it up within seconds. Not for a moment. If the kid was that close, he would have seen him and not put it down.

Cool if you are going to start out by assuming people are lying, great.

Let's see if any charges are filed and if the guy is convicted.. I'm thinking.. not likly on the first and pretty much no way in hell on the second.

I dunno, I'd be pretty okay with any loaded, chambered, and cocked firearm being left unattended for any period of time as being considered negligent.

If the kid could just pick it up and discharge it, then it was clearly in a ready-to-fire situation, and not one where you should ever leave a gun alone. If you're chambered and cocked, you had better intend to shoot, or you should drop and clear. I highly doubt that a four-year-old was inadvertently firing a double-action trigger pull.

Couple of points.

1. You are assumeing facts about the gun that there is no evidence yet to suggest. We know it was loaded but that is all we know from the story. You are assuming it was chambered and cocked because you are familar with that type of gun for whatever reason, but what if the thing was a revolver. No cocking and chambering needed at that point. My point here is stop inventing things about the gun and the story that you have no idea about and stick with the parts of the story that are known.

2. The gun was attended to as the two adults were standing right there. That's attended. Attended doesn't mean guarded by 5 elite ninjas, or that nobody can possibly get past you or come at the object from another direction.

I apologize, for some reason I was thinking that it was you who posted the original article when you merely provided the link that arcite neglected to provide.

Regardless of who it was, it's undeniable that there have been a handful of posters in this thread who have made a habit of posting every tragic story they happen to come across in this thread. Usually without any comment or argument, which makes them pretty clear emotional appeals.

At the very least he racked the slide and put it down in the presence of a kid. That is the definition of fucked up.

Where in the story tells you what type of gun it is? Please point that out because I sure as hell can't find it. Could it have been racked? Yup. Do we know it was that type of gun? No. For all we know it could have been a revolver. I'm not saying it was, but I'm saying you are happily sprinkling all sorts of things into this story that don't exist anywhere else but in your mind in order to make the gun owner seem more guilty of... something.

Like the booze part from before. Please stick with the facts of the story and not the ones dancing around in your head.

I apologize, for some reason I was thinking that it was you who posted the original article when you merely provided the link that arcite neglected to provide.

Regardless of who it was, it's undeniable that there have been a handful of posters in this thread who have made a habit of posting every tragic story they happen to come across in this thread. Usually without any comment or argument, which makes them pretty clear emotional appeals.

I can see why you made the mistake. arcite brought up the story. papadage actually linked to it after it was brought up.

And a cooukout in TN? Please. I lived there. Beer starts flowing before the first guest shows up. While it is an assumption, it is not out of line at all.

Even if I retract both, which I will gladly do if I am wrong, the facts are still an indication of negligence.

The fact that you added shit that wasn't in the article, then built a case about them as if they were facts show just how incapable you are of even remotely looking at something like this based on facts and not emotional appeal.

Again: I'm not saying that there was no wrong doing, but that at this time with what is known, I'm going with no and I think criminal justice system will follow with that guess.

Where in the story tells you what type of gun it is? Please point that out because I sure as hell can't find it. Could it have been racked? Yup. Do we know it was that type of gun? No. For all we know it could have been a revolver. I'm not saying it was, but I'm saying you are happily sprinkling all sorts of things into this story that don't exist anywhere else but in your mind in order to make the gun owner seem more guilty of... something.

Type of gun is largely irrelevant to this case.

The gun was chambered unless you're going to believe that a 4-year-old has the wherewithal to either rack a semi-auto handgun or load a semi-auto or bolt-action rifle. Revolvers are always naturally chambered, so that's not even a consideration there.

The gun was cocked unless you're going to believe that a 4-year-old has the wherewithal to draw a hammer back before accidentally discharging, or is strong/determined enough to go through an entire double-action trigger pull.

To me, Occam's Razor says the gun had a high probability of being chambered and cocked. 100% certainty, no, but the other suggestions seem much more far-fetched.

The gun was cocked unless you're going to believe that a 4-year-old has the wherewithal to draw a hammer back before accidentally discharging, or is strong/determined enough to go through an entire double-action trigger pull.

You clearly haven't been around many kids. Almost all bad stories involving them have a mix of...

"I didn't think they were that fast..... I didn't think they were that strong... I didn't think they could know how to...."

Kids are remarkably good at mimicing what they see adults do... normally it's a good thing, it's how they learn to do lots of stuff. Sometimes however... not so good.